Danny Boyle To Direct 28 MONTHS LATER??

Merrick here...
In early October, reports from the Stiges International Film Festival said that Paul Andrew Willams (THE COTTAGE, LONDON TO BRIGHTON) would direct 28 MONTHS LATER - a second sequel to 28 DAYS LATER. This report came to us from Arrow in the Head, via JoBlo. You can find a report about it HERE.
Turns out, this may nt necessarily be the case. Danny Boyle, director of 28 DAYS LATER and producer of its first sequel, has expressed interest in directing a third installment of the plaguey franchise.

"I'd certainly like to," Boyle said in a group interview on Nov. 6 in Beverly Hills, Calif., where he was promoting his latest film, Slumdog Millionaire. "I feel the idea is quite a strong idea, and it could well involve directing it. Yeah, absolutely."

...says THIS ARTICLE at SciFi.com.
Boyle''s apparently awesome SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE will be hitting theaters very soon. A trailer for it can be found HERE.

is one of the worst movie I've ever seen I think. The first ten minutes were spectacular, and then with every minute that passed after that it got worse and worse until it became an unrecognizable piece of shit breaking conventions just for the sake of killing people you don't expect...not because it makes for a good story.

I'd like to see Boyle do a gritty and brutal medieval movie, like George R.R. Martin's HEDGE KNIGHT. Now that would be awesome.<p>28 MONTHS LATER is a great idea, but 28 YEARS LATER is the one I'm waiting for.

I thought both films were great and admired the Weeks quite a bit, although it didn't quite reach the greatness of Days. What was wrong with the last section of Days? It had a great gothic feel, and really ended the film spectacularly. I guess I don't understand what y'all want from a horror/action pic these days. So few are worth the time, I would never insult either of these films, Bring on Months!!!

First film has a brilliant first 60 minutes then a clichéd if thematically strong final 30. 28 Weeks on the other hand just keeps topping set piece after set piece while remaining thematically coherent throughout. If Carlyle didn't keep showing up to stalk his kids it would be a pretty flawless movie.

was great (check out the DVD). A full-on infected attack of the military compound. In the commentary, Boyle basically admits that this is the ending the viewer would expect to see in this type of movie, but it was still better than the ending he stuck with. The unfilmed alternate ending (the storyboards are on the DVD) sucked though.

With Boyle coming off of Slumdog Millionaire, and considering how quickly the virus is spreading at the end of 28 Weeks Later, I'm imagining a structure for 28 Months Later that puts us in locations around the world that we don't see very often on the big screen. Zombie movies in general are such an allegory for political ideas, Boyle could really sink his teeth into how different cultures across the globe react when the virus comes to their town. Does the Muslim world react differently than the West? How does the virus affect the growing geo-political tensions between China and the USA? What actions do the wealthiest citizens take compared to the teeming masses? There are lots of opportunities. Of course, there are lots of potential narrative pit-falls as well. It would be easy to let the story get backed into a corner full of clichés. With Boyle at the helm though, I think there's less chance that the story becomes overly derivative.

Open letter to the Haters: When posting, could you expand a little more on WHY you dislike a flick? Posts like, "the second one sucked" or "the first 30 minutes were good" don't really tell us much about what you think is actually wrong with a flick. For example, I adore almost every moment of 28 Days Later, but I think the pacing in 28 Weeks Later was really damaged by the drawn-out climax, and that a more ambiguous ending would have been much more satisfying. Remove the epilogue from the flick and the whole movie becomes many degrees more interesting.

Actually, I don't think you're in that much of a minority. It seemed to be pretty even as far as people preferring the first or second one. Personally, I preferred 'Days,' but 'Weeks' certainly wasn't bad, just too many unbelievable plot points (the kids immediately going out into the "non-green" zone and the dad somehow appearing all over London). I hope Boyle does return for 'Months.' Have any story details come out?

Moment that killed it for me in the second one: when Robert Carlyle visits his tied up wife with absolutely no one around to guard her room. Let's see, a plague that wiped out a ton of people, and no one is protecting the potential solution to the outbreak?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the rediculous plot-hole where all the civilians are locked in the room "for their protection" knowing that the infected could be anywhere. That one plot element really sank the flick for me.

I guess, "it sucks" is what passes for a reasonable argument now-a-days. I liked the Carlyle character as a evolutionary step in the Rage Virus, a lot like the Dead sequels. Much of Weeks is an indictment of US and Military ineptitude in general. They made alot of horrible decisions, valuing the containment of the virus over human life. Even the two authority figures who did try to attack the problem with intelligence and compassion inadvertently allowed the virus to spread to the mainland. It is as depressing a view of humanity as Night of the Living Dead, great stuff.

In "Days", the military devolved into a criminal gang intent on raping innocent victims it lured to their safe zone. Ludicrous. Aside from the fact that no military structure would leave a unit stranded - they're always accounted for - the devolution from protecting innocents to a criminal gang was dumb beyond belief. And it killed the movie.<p>In "Weeks", aside from the lack of naval vessels, when the immune/infected mother was discovered, she would not be allowed to remain there, and would be guarded by numerous heavily armed soldiers/Marines. No way Carylse would be able to get to her. Ridiculous. And as pointed out here earlier, the military would NEVER be involved in mass slaughter like depicted. Stupid, stupid, stupid. And it killed the movie.

"Weeks" begins with one of the most intense escape sequences I've yet seen in film, which is followed by fairly believable character exposition and establishes a subtly oppressive atmosphere. The last third of the film then proceeds to ramp up the intensity, scope, and body count without being too predictable or formulaic.
"28 Days Later," has a more dreadful feeling throughout, punctuated by more forgettable action sequences. It's actually probably the better film but I had a lot more fun with "Weeks."

No, I'm saying that portraying the military in that fashion in "Weeks" is what helped kill the film. The rage virus, as portrayed in the film, instantly infects its victims. Therefore, if you see someone trying to hide, duh, they're not infected. So why shoot them? There would be an attempt to discern the infected vs. non-infected.

IMHO, the explanation for the crazy army unit in the first one is Ecclestone's character. He's like that guy every geek knows in high school who reads a little about Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler and thinks he's figured out how to take over the world and actually make it work. The premise is admittedly ludicrous that the British military would abandon perfectly good equipment and personnel, but not if it's Ecclestone who is the crazy one who deliberately cuts off communications because he's delusional enough to think the virus is an opportunity to emerge as a "big man on campus". From his men's point-of-view, they aren't a criminal gang gang-raping innocent victims. They're just "doing what has to be done" to repopulate the human race. I really don't think it's unreasonable to think a little pathology would set in for a few heavily-armed enlisted men, cut off from the outside world and utterly surrounded by zombies.

infected, i think both of these movies are utterly fantastic and sure like every horror movie its full of plot holes and what the fuck moments but the good shit far outweighs the crap.. i mean come on, who else is delivering us some killer rampaging zombie/virus heads? romero? fuck off hes trying to kill the genre.. thankfuck DB is coming back to direct this all we need now is synder to do a sequel to Dawn of the Dead and im in flesh eating heaven!

I can accept your premise that one lunatic running a unit deliberately cut themselves off from the rest of society. However, to what end? Those guys seemed just as desperate to survive as everyone else, not set up a New Order. With it established that the situation was limited to England, not the world, it doesn't make sense that they would remain in a place where they were under constant attack and with a high risk of death when they could have radioed in a rescue. <p>Perhaps if this were more of a Escape From New York premise, I'd buy into it. But the whole situation doesn't make a lick of sense, other than to bash the military. Having an End Time situation with military people who have been trained to defend and protect its populace turn into loathsome rapists/murderers is too much of a stretch.

In the first movie it was NOT established that the infection was limited to England. We only know that because of the second movie. Boyle made a point of keeping us guessing in the first movie about that crucial fact. Part of what makes the first flick so good for me is how it uses ambiguity to such great effect. Did Cillian Murphy's character really see an airliner in the sky, or was it just a hallucination? Did Cillian Murphy's character really survive or not? Were they really spotted by that fighter pilot? Which ending is the "real" one? We don't know how much Ecclestone's character actually knows, or how much he's actually told his men. I've never interpreted the first flick as bashing the military. I've seen it as bashing Ecclestone's character and also as a "ask yourself what YOU'D do if he was your commanding officer" kind of story, which makes it all the more disturbing if your answer is that you probably wouldn't act much differently. The soldiers are convinced they're the last humans alive, and the civilian characters are holding out hope that there's a chance for a rescue. The ambiguity and the moral questions depend on whether or not there's a chance of a rescue or not. IF the two women realy ARE the only women left on the planet, then what's the best moral course of action then? I think we have to interpret the first flick as a standalone story, without the "answers" that the second one brings into it.

The final thought that the frenchies were gonna be next... Fucking sheep burning apathetic bunch... lets see if they can last longer than they did against ze germans (until about lunchtime should do it...)

Had a great beginning, with survivors getting into a dinghy and setting off across the channel and getting taken out by an exorcet missle from a yankee fighter... mind you the filmed beginning was also very cool...

Yeah, I know the purists out there will disagree cause they can't get over Romero's blue faced slow paced Zombies, But the remake had lots of "oh shit" moments and nothing beats fast Zombies.<p>I did like both 28 Days and 28 Weeks (although weeks had some dumb ass moments)and hopefully the third times a charm.

I've watched the movie nearly 15 times now, but all I got out of it was that they were not actually REAL military at all, but perhaps a collection of liberated prisoners. An immoral gang of creeps who were imitating military squads with found armaments and equipment. This is why I actually got drawn back into the story quickly, because it was a private example of how torn apart society was on a larger level. If the whole world hadn't fallen (which was confirmed in the sequel) I would imagine that REAL soldiers would have been able to maintain contact with regional levels of authority and extracted to another rally point. The rogue squad didn't exactly appear competent at repelling directed attacks, or even simple tasks of disposing of civilian upstarts, such as our protagonist.

Don't you get any ideas of buying the rights to produce a Movie basde on the promising Videogame Left 4 Dead.Otherwise I'll have to enter the boxing ring and hand you a serious beatdown. (unlike AICN's Mirajeff who's ass you kicked.)<p>You're the Ed Wood of Videogame based Movies who should be banned from making any more films.

If you liked DOTD 2004 and 28 Days/Weeks, go check out "Dead Set" which is a UK production about what happens when the UK is overrun by a fast zombie plague and the people inside the Big Brother House carry on with their reality TV show without realising it. Well, at least at first they don't.
<p>
If you're quick, you can still catch the full thing on youtube.

I don't have much to add. I thought they were both good films, although I enjoy the first more. In terms of style, visuals, and pacing, it's much more creative. Also, the continuing recurrence of the Robert Carlyle zombie really took me out of the film to a disappointing degree.
<br><br>Anyway, Boyle's return to the sequel would be cool in my mind. Like others, I'm still holding out hope for that Trainspotting sequel. Irvine Welsh has already written more than enough material about the continuing adventures of Renton, Sickboy, Begbie, etc., to adapt in his books.<br><br>Yeah, I know McGregor and Boyle had a falling out. They can work around that. Klaus Kinski tried to hire someone to kill Werner Herzog, for pete's sake, and look at the art they made.

Unfortunately for Sunshine, it copied almost the entire plot and major event that happened in Event Horizon. In fact Sunshine followed Event Horizon so closely, it could have only been unintentional because if someone had brought this to their attention, I'm sure they would have changed at least a few things.

Event Horizon. Who wants to remember good actors in a bad movie. I mean, it wasn't the worst movie ever made, but memorable? Sunshine is memorable as a sci-fi flik that got shown in alot of art-house cinemas. And yes, it's comparable to Event Horizon. But how EH keeps getting mentioned in these talkbacks I'll never know.

A prequel set long before the zombies appeared, showing the boring lives of the scientists and soldiers from the first film. A dull, dumb family drama with everyday "family problems", just like a TV opera. Women will love it!

2001, Blade Runner, Alien, I'd guess, ...and agree.
Intacto was cool. Was 'Weeks' directorial debut.
'Stranger' is a GreaT book from Simon Clark with a fear/paranoia virus.
...hmmm...what if we make the Zombies fast? Cool. What about the vampires? Heh. Equal and opposite reaction. Shambling vampires. "I vant to bite your...hey! come back!" shambleshamble

I'll check it out on the torrents if not you tube.And I concur that Sunshine copied from Event Horizon which is way better.For those who liked EH should check out Dead Space it's one of the best sci-fi horror games out there IMO.

was ok some good ideas but for me the star was the big brother house... and i mean that in a (i can help it but it just seems a bit to gimmiky) kind a way... if you did a zombie movie with faced paced shuffling zombies would the romero bunch be happy? how about 'light jogging' zombies?

Event Horizon is tells a story about a ship that is launched away from the sun and disappears before reappearing 7 years later transmitting a strange message and missing its crew.
<p>
A ship is sent to investigate and finds the slaughtered remains of the original crew. An explosion leads to the survivors having to shelter on the Event Horizon and are further stalked and butchered by one of the crew who is transformed into some king of monster. The film ends with part of the ship being sucked into some kind of interdimensional vortex after said monster/former crewman says he's taking them to hell.
<p>
Sunshine is a movie that tells a story about a ship that is launched towards from the sun (Icarus I) and it disappears before being found 7 years later transmitting a distress and missing its crew.
<p>
In this case the ship (Icarus II) finds the Icarus I by chance and finds the mummified remains of the original crew. An explosion leads to the survivors having to shelter on the Icarus I (if I remember that correctly) and they are further stalked and butchered by one of the crew who is transformed into some king of monster. The film ends with part of the ship being sucked into some kind of vortex on the surface of the sun after said monster/former crewman says he's taking them to heaven.
<p>
In fact, you could almost call Sunshine "Event Horizon II - Towards the sun this time".

What I thought they were going with was that it turned out that the sun was alive and intelligent and wanted to die. That's how it convinced the Icarus I crew to top themselves and why I thought the Icarus II crew were becoming increasingly fascinated with it.
<p>
Instead, we have Pinback (or was it Pinbacker?) transformed into some kind of luminescent being that's survived on the Icarus I for years (why? how? at least Event Horizon had some kind of explanation for Dr Weir). Whatever made the Icarus I crew do what they did was completely absent from the Icarus II crew - hence what the Icarus I crew did made no sense at all and finally like Event Horizon, the film devolved into a poor stalk and slash at the end ruining whatever promise the opening set up had.
<p>
My main disappointment was that despite being technically accomplished, I couldn't help but feel I'd seen this movie before. Every key event seemed the same, unfortunately.

They do in Dead Set what I thought was a good take on the threat of the running zombie genre. There's some obvious places later in the show where they could have cut some scenes and subplots but it all moves very quickly.
<p>
There's some especially funny mileage out of people stuck in an isolated reality tv show who don't know that the world outside as they knew it has ended.
<p>
Dead Space had an OK animated prequel movie but I actually found the comic prequel (which was also done with voiceovers to the stills) much more creepy, chilling and downright bizarre. You can find the comic on youtube if you haven't seen it. Of course the movie and the comic all but contradict each other.

I'm not a huge fan of the film but I'll play pseudo Devil's Advocate. They make a big (and rather ham-handed) point of "Oh, look how successful the garden has gotten." <p> As for not explaining what happened to Icarus 1 Crew - the eternal (and admittedly half-assed) explanation will undoubtedly be "We are trying to put you in the perspective of the Icarus 2 crew who also don't know what made Icarus 1 go nuts and besides the not knowing is scary - your imagination is better than anything we cant be bothered to put up on screen etc." <p> To be perfectly honest - my fave bit was the commentary from the AstroPhysicist who liked most of the film but had issues with how the crew interacted with the gravitational field off one of the planets ... or somesuch. I'm not a physicist - i just play one in talkback.

I can't really remember too well. Wasn't he not human anymore for quite some time so the status of the garden was moot?
<p>
Your explanation could well be it but I still just remember thinking Pinbacker's survival and then turning into a neon maniac seemed completely random and ... well to be honest just a bit stupid.

Boyle is the man. If he wants back in, then it means he and Garland got some good tricks up their sleeve. They reinvented the tired zombie genre. I'd love to see what they'd do with a third installment.

though I agree as Great.....When Terry Brooks agreed to write the novelization for Episode I he was concerned about writing SciFi since he normally does Fantasy. Lucas said 'Don't worry. SW _is_ Fantasy'
Sure...SW is still SciFi...but it seems the fantasy elements of the plot are stronger.
And, in a completely unrelated story, you MUST see 'Lord of the Beans'. Hilarious.